Shared decision making requires that physicians acknowledge their responsibility to the patient, their responsibility to be true to their own clinical judgment about the patient's best interest, their accountability to society, and the uncertainty of the evidence.

There is much to be gained by integrating ethics and EBM, focusing on the implications of uncertainty for clinical practice and exploring the effect a clinician’s values have on acquisition and application of evidence.

As efforts to include patients in the design and execution of research studies continue to expand, public deliberation offers a means for the general public to become involved with the broader social context that determines the impact of research, from the identification of research priorities to the use of research results to shape health care policy and practice.

The history of McMaster University's problem-based learning curriculum and critical appraisal methods, which Gordon Guyatt and David Sackett would later advocate as evidence-based medicine.

Using evidence-based medical guidelines in courts will require confronting legal professionals' lack of training in assessing scientific evidence, the limitations of available evidence, and fundamental distinctions between the meaning of evidence in medicine and law.

Three practical methods for actively teaching critical appraisal skills in an evidence-based medicine curriculum.

The AMA Code of Medical Ethics' opinions on informing patients about treatment options.

This process of developing EBM-based guidelines and applying them to clinical care highlights the tension between generating unbiased knowledge based on statistical aggregation and the application of this information to individual patients.

Just as people frequently support political parties without endorsing their entire platforms, perhaps physicians can support a health care advocacy organization without agreeing with its screening guidelines.

When engaging in shared decision making, the authors recommend using gist representations, including visual representations, of risk information, framing the data in a way that accords with the balance of risks and benefits the patient is likely to encounter, and remembering that experts are subject to the same cognitive biases as patients.